In general I agree with Lee, device CPs with drug PMOA (typically injectors/applicators) are considered part of the primary container/container closure and always filed with drug product.
The only instance in which I could see potentially including the "device" in the DS section would be if the device itself has an additional chemical MOA (e.g. bioresorbable microneedles) that somehow enhance the activity of the primary MOA moiety (e.g. greater than that of a standard injector) in which case the chemistry of the microneedles might be discussed in a DS section? In any case, if you are confused or uncertain this is a situation in which I would include a question about filing structure in a pre-IND meeting request should you do one.
------------------------------
Krystin Meidell MS
Manager, Regulatory Affairs CMC Combination Products
Boston MA
United States
------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 02-Jan-2020 16:49
From: Anonymous Member
Subject: Combination Products with Multiple Drug Substances (DS)
This message was posted by a user wishing to remain anonymous
Firstly, thank you for the inputs. I am looking for advice or case studies on products submitted as INDs to CDER/CBER with multiple drug substance (DS) sections. When might this strategy be appropriate?
For drug-device/biologic/device combo products, would it be appropriate to include a device as a seperate secondary DS for combinations involving both in the final combination product where the device/biologic and small molecule contribute to the therapeutic effect. Delivery pens/injectors/autoinjectors are commonly container-closure & secondary container-closure, but how about microneedle, patch, cell containment devices, etc. How would you treat these (container closure vs. DS). What are the pros/cons of having the device as a container-closure vs DS?